Thinking outside of the big-box

As another community grapples with the question of how to respond to the proliferation of large homes on relatively small plots of land, it seems worthwhile to revisit this issue in Teaneck. There are, of course, compelling arguments that can made in favor of limiting the ratio of living space to land or more strictly regulating the amount of permissible lot coverage. On the other hand, there is something distasteful and even alarming about municipal government further constraining the already limited rights of homeowners to improve their properties as they see fit. Township officials and residents alike recognize that there is a fine line to be walked between preventing individual homeowners from harming a neighborhood's character and infringing on property rights.

Perhaps it is time for a more creative approach to the issue. How about regulations that would impose an annual consumption tax on those who want to exceed certain levels of property coverage? Without removing the ultimate cap on the percentage of a lot that could be built upon, the town could assess properties at higher tax rates based on the amount by which they exceed certain levels of coverage or certain building heights. The extra revenue raised from these homes could be used partially for the municipal budget and partially to reduce the property tax bills of neighboring homeowners as compensation for the unpleasantness of living near one of these homes, using a predetermined formula.

Implemented correctly, such a policy could benefit the town by increasing ratables without encouraging overbuilding. It would protect the rights of individual homeowners to expand their homes or install amenities such as swimming pools, while at the same time making sure the neighbors do not suffer unduly. Might this be a good way to make the best of a vexing situation?